Slashdot Mirror


Scientologists In Row With BBC

CmdrGravy writes "The Church Of Scientology is currently engaged in a row with the BBC, a result of an investigation by reporter John Sweeney. Sweeney is investigating the Church Of Scientology, trying to judge changes in the organization over the last few years; He's trying to discover if they've moved away from the questionable practices and secrecy they have employed in the past. The conflict centers around a YouTube video posted by the scientologists. It shows Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with a scientology spokesman. Mr. Sweeney's outburst came at the end of a tour of a scientology exhibition which attempts to portray psychiatrists as evil nazi type torturers entitled 'Psychiatry: Industry of Death' which is both gruesome and utterly unconvincing. The BBC appears willing to stand behind its reporter, in spite of the pressure brought to bear by the scientologist organization."

29 of 763 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's pretty simple. The Scientologists want to rule the world with their wacky ideas and the BBC want to rule the world with their dialect of the English language. With both of them in a hissy fit with each other, they can do neither. So you can relax, throw popcorn and laugh at them.

  2. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this in YRO? I guess you could make some weird case for my right to have the BBC pick on Scientology...
    It's not about Scientology suing BBC, it's about them trying to silence someone who dared to say something bad about them. Oh, wait -- he didn't even do that in public, just in a talk with a scientologist. The report wasn't published, it was the Church of Scientology who attacked first.

    And being attacked for criticizing Scientology is something that could have happened to you. For, let's say, talking bad about those Sons-of-a-Bitch here on Slashdot.
    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  3. Link to YouTube video in TFA by svunt · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. Scientology Brain Police by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative
    The founder - Hubbard - was a SF writer, who worked in US Govenment mind control programs, performed Enochian and Crowleyan magickal evocations - and bet his editor $1 Million he'd start a successful religion, claiming it would pay much more than hacking out pulp-stories.

    If there were ever devil-worshipping human slime, with a penchant for pederasty, it was L. Ron Hubbard.

    Oh, yeah. Charles Manson was a Scientologist.

    http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/why- they-fight_15.html

    'Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.'

    - U.S. government mind manipulator, Dr. Jose Delgado, Congressional Record, No. 262E, Vol. 118, 1974.
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  5. says it all by mastershake_phd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." - L Ron Hubbard

  6. Re:Why by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are wasting our time with a bunch of delusional cultists? Because they take millions of dollars from gullible people, they are a corporation of ignorance posing as a religion, they have killed, and they censor and lash out at people who investigate them.

    I really hope the BBC wins, and shows that nothing has changed. We have to nip this "religion" in the bud, it's disgusting.
    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  7. Re:So? Most religions are nutty. by cliveholloway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Brainwashing and "disconnecting" people from your family doesn't float your boat, eh? Being swallowed by a cult is devastating for the families involved. So as long as these crazy people aren't hurting you you don't give a fuck, eh?

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  8. Re:So? Most religions are nutty. by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, Scientology is nutty, but that's about normal for a religion. Could be worse. They don't have a big pedophile problem, suicide bombers, or televangelists, like some of their competitors.

    Nutty? So, Scientology is in fact a mental illness, which doesn't acknowledge mental illnesses.
    What a cosmic irony.

    I suppose in this case you're right, we gotta be more PC to Scientologists and their "special condition".

    Sam: Dude, we're tainted by the souls of aliens blown with nukes by alien space invador from a galaxy far far away!
    Jim: Man, you're a f***ing idiot or something? STFU!
    Sam: No, I'm a scientologist...
    Jim: OH! Oh... oh buddy, sorry I had no idea. I really had no idea.. but you'll be fine, yea.. you'll be just fine.

  9. Scientologists are MASTERS at pissing you off. by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's why:

    A key belief and practice of the Church involved "auditing" via the "E-Meter". The "E-Meter" is a bargain-basement lie detector. It works on galvanic skin response; it can measure (crudely) fluctuations in your emotional state. It can't measure much past that. So one person holds these two "tin cans" while somebody else tries to make them respond enough to flinch the needle.

    The person being "audited" is practicing how to be emotionally non-responsive to whatever is thrown at them - and that can involve verbal abuse, shouting, whatever.

    This isn't controversial or something the "church" denies.

    What most people don't think about is the flip side: what is being learned by the person NOT holding the tin cans? The one trying to trigger a response in the other?

    Yup. You guessed it. They become masters (eventually) at "pressing people's buttons".

    So anybody not used to this sort of thing or who isn't expecting it can be made to "blow up", sometimes spectacularly. And I'd bet good money that's exactly what they did to Sweeney and for exactly the reason they've used this incident: to portray any opponent as an out of control loose cannon, nutcase, etc.

    Don't go up against these guys unless your self control is rock solid AND you understand this technique. Be ready to say something like "much as you might prefer otherwise, I'm not being "audited", I'm not standing here with tin cans in my hand looking like an idiot, you're not going to get me to blow up". Turn it back on 'em, they'll start foaming at the mouth. If a Rondroid is trying to get you pissed, ASSUME there's a camera pointing your way.

  10. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't critique the Church of Scientology because they are over the top. I use the almighty buck (which I feel too few consumers do these days.) I refuse to watch, buy, or do anything with folks that go over the top with Scientology. For example Tom Cruise. Ever since his over the top outbursts I decided to stop buying, watching or doing anything with his movies.

    Of course me as a single consumer will probably not make much of dent, but I wish more consumers would do the same. Though I am thinking more in general about this and not specifically Scientology. People complain, etc, yet few do anything like stop buying products. If people realized that the buck has more power and sway than a single vote maybe there would be some real change.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  11. Re:Why by tm2b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are wasting our time with a bunch of delusional cultists?
    I'm guessing, because they're pretty ruthless in trying to destroy the lives of people who think that they can just laugh them off.

    Ridiculous, yes... but have you seen the messes those crazies who believe in Transubstantiation have made over the last couple thousand years? Just as they're settling down, we've got some newer upstarts wanting to go all David Koresh and Osama bin Laden on the world. Where's Janet Reno when you need her?

    In one big way, these people are worse than previous cults striving to be religions - ironically, our ability to detect mental illness helps the CoS get crazier. This cult specifically recruits and attracts those who modern science has said are mentally ill... and we're surprised when they pull particularly crazy-assed shit?
    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  12. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's kind of ironic that if you want to look at the downside of Scientology, you only need to look at their celebrity converts. E.g. Tom Cruise going increasingly off the rails now he's not allowed to see his shrink or take prescription drugs, or John Travolta forced to deny his homosexuality. If they weren't Scientologists, you get the impression they'd be happier. Richer too probably.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  13. BBC rebuttal + dif. Angle of Incident on Youtube by realitybath1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8hpHY9zDQ It doesn't seem so harsh at this angle and the scientologist is the one who starts with the voice raising. Sweeney just takes it to the next level. Obviously out of hand for a journalist, but quite satisfying to see.

    The one characteristic that I've noticed is consistent across scientologist interviews I've seen is that they all have a creepy boneheadedness when it comes to answering any question, no matter how innocuous it may be. It's as if every moment in life has to be a confirmation of their beliefs.

  14. Especially worrying by tttonyyy · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology _Moscow_versus_Russia

    This is a recent development - in April the European court of human rights decided that it was against EU law for Russia to deny Scientology religeon status - a judgement that applies to all EU member states including the UK and Germany (who have previously been quite outspoken against it).

    May I draw people's attention to http://www.xenu.net/

    Scientology - the cult pyramid scheme

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    1. Re:Especially worrying by julesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a recent development - in April the European court of human rights decided that it was against EU law for Russia to deny Scientology religeon status - a judgement that applies to all EU member states including the UK and Germany (who have previously been quite outspoken against it).

      Reading the details of the case, it seems the Russian situation was quite different from that in the UK or Germany, in that an unregistered church is legally prevented from doing several things that could be considered necessary to running a church (e.g., "renting premises for religious ceremonies and worship" or "receiving and disseminating religious literature") which can be performed legally in the UK and Germany without being a registered church. Because of this factor, refusal to register effectively constituted banning them from spreading their beliefs, which is (IMO) unacceptable unless done in full view of the world, with proper democratic process (rather than via beurocracy as was done here). Not considering them a religion in (say) the UK simply means that they do not acquire a number of taxation benefits that they might otherwise be entitled to. I don't think this would be considered a violation of their human rights.

      I'd be very careful about what you read into the conclusions drawn in the "case law" section of the article you link to, BTW. Wikipedia has a strong scientology community, and in this case I believe they have rendered the article rather biased. As an example:

      The decision of the Human Rights Court in the Moscow Church of Scientology case mandates that States cannot intervene arbitrarily into religious matters and are strictly prohibited from evaluating or reinterpreting the internal validity of religious beliefs genuinely held by individual believers or religious communities like Scientology.

      This is introduced as an interpretation of the court's conclusion that "the autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords. The State's duty of neutrality and impartiality, as defined in the Court's case-law, is incompatible with any power on the State's part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs." While it is a valid interpretation of the last sentence, if taken out of context, I'd say the previous sentence (and sentences earlier in the paragraph) limit the scope of the "incompatibility" noted by the court to matters which relate to article 9.

      Specifically, article 9 states "Everyone has the right [...] either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

      Also worth considering is that the court did not consider any public health issues in making this decision (because the basis of the decision that the Russian government made against Scientology was not made on those grounds), but article 9's scope is "subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society [...] for the protection of public [...] health". This means that the courts decision is not incompatible with one where a country introduces a law preventing religious practices that are considered psychologically harmful, for instance.

  15. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's most likely here because scientology nutjobs have sent Slashdot a cease and desist in the past, and made them pull down posts with copyrighted material (I'm fine with that) and links to copyrighted material (I'm not fine with that).

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  16. Re:He didn't look like he was "losing it" to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Got the same impression. Poor guy. I mean, you should in that case simply turn of the camera and explain it during editing (after all, when cutting your tape you have full control of what goes on screen and what doesn't)... But I know that religious types (let's define religion broadly) can really pull the blood away from under your nails. Any exchange between a religous person and a sane person is inherently unfair. The religious person believes in things that are made up, in fairytales that are easily shown to be fiction. By nonetheless believing those they show that their mind is like ROM. It's litterally like talking to a brick wall. There is this part of them that parses enough of your sentences to generate an inadequate answer, but no information actually gets past their mental firewall.
    John Sweeney, I support you 100% on this one. This whole incident probably says more about Scientology than about you.

  17. Actually, some Christians behave the same way. by Flying+pig · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Disclaimer: my background is Episcopalian/Quaker. I'm not exactly pro-fundamentalists. But I have experienced exactly the same techniques from fundamentalists, home grown as well as US. Choose an enemy who thinks differently from you (e.g. Catholics, psychiatrists.) Demonise them. Stir up hate among your followers; everybody likes to have an "other" they can believe to be evil. When dealing with sceptics, always behave very calmly to show your emotional superiority. This convinces your followers that you are right. (It's also a good idea to point out minor factual inaccurancies or grammatical errors in the publications of your opponents, to prove to the sheep that you are intellectually superior as well.) In order to keep your sheep in line, make sure that they keep having to pass tests, like "testifying" to your born-againness. (Of course I wouldn't for one moment suggest that Scientology auditing is in any shape or form like fundamentalist conversion experiences or speaking in tongues.)

    The difference is that most nutty Protestant sects do not become as large and rich as the Church of Scientology, and they also have to keep some sort of attachment to a nominally Christian approach. They also have the problem that their followers do tend to be socially mobile - the fact of going to Church shows they want to "better" themselves - and with social mobility comes exposure to more educated people who may guide them towards mainstream Christianity. Scientology, on the other hand, is not a bizarre offshoot of a mainstream religion and there is no central tendency for its followers to gravitate back to.

    There is too with cults an interesting anti-intellectual tendency. If you want to make authoritative pronouncements in, say, the Catholic or Episcopalian churches, you are probably fluent in NT Greek and can read the NT in the original. Cults contain less educated people, so they will do things like take a particular English translation of the Bible as being authoritative and solve the problem that way. Extreme cults can get a following from rich people who do not want to invest the time and effort needed to become familiar with, say, the Bible or the Pali texts. You can join something like - oh, say Kabbalah - and say pretty well anything in public without looking ridiculous, while a Hollywood actor who tries to sound knowledgeable about the Bible had better know his or her stuff because there are so many well informed people listening. A religion that does not let its sacred texts get out too much is at an advantage in this respect.

    As a part time student of religious sociology, it's a pity I won't be around in 50 years to see if Scientology, like Mormonism before it, is evolving into a mainstream religion and gradually losing its bizarre baggage.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  18. Re:Why by ThePromenader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even before it began, the 'psychiatry is evil' story is f*cked from all angles. What is 'normal' and 'sane'? 'Sane' in our society has not the same definition in other societies, cultures and social networks. So the goal of a psychiatrist is to guide his patient towards behaviour considered nomal by the society he lives in... yet who in our society can define "optimal normal", especially when we worship the most eccentric amongst us?

    The goal of Scientology is the very opposite of psychiatry - it wants to split you from society (to better 'form' you), not help you work better with it. The things most 'evil' to any religion are things a threat to the religion itself.

    --

    No, no sig. Really.

    ThePromenader
  19. Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The end of the BBC...

    You are aware that it is effectively part of the British state apparatus, aren't you? It isn't just a British CNN, NBC or whatever, it was established and is maintained by Royal Charter.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/

    I think it highly likely that any action launched against the BBC in this respect would fall flat at the first hurdle. And if they do actually get sued in the US then in every other place the BBC operates, the plaintiff can expect a huge campaign of negative publicity for the rest of time; they won't back down when they believe that they are right - for any reason.

  20. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by SamSim · · Score: 5, Informative

    And being attacked for criticizing Scientology is something that could have happened to you. For, let's say, talking bad about those Sons-of-a-Bitch here on Slashdot.

    This has, in fact, happened. As far as I am aware this is the only time in history that a Slashdot comment has been edited.

  21. Re:Why by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Amen to that. I'd never hard of them way back in 1982 or so when one jumped out at me in Oxford Street (London) 'Free Personality Test Sir?' Why sure! My friend had ben warned by his Uni not to go near them but I thought it sounded fun so I went in and he waited in the lobby.
    2 Hours later my friend got me liberated by shouting the place down in no uncertain terms and threatening them with the police for kidnapping.
    I'd just split with my g/f and was feeling very low which needless to say they picked up on and I quickly found myself in a side room getting the good cop/bad cop routine, being told it would take 20 years to undo all the damage in my head that was stopping me achieve etc. etc. They would not let me go. Every time I tried to get up they stopped me, not with a gun but in ways that stop a polite person - gentle hand on shoulder, standing in the way of the door etc. as well as all the 'Please, you really need help, I'd be a bad person if I let you just leave - at least buy our book!'.
    In hindsite, a lucky escape c/o my friend. Whilst I knew it was all highly dodgy, something in the way they quickly stripped my defences, pulled me apart and offered the 'only' way to be put back together again was with their help was compelling.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  22. Re:Body Thetans? by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they something like intergalactic pubic lice?
    Now you've done it! All material on the Star Crabs is classified OT3, and most definitely not to be discussed in public!

    Hang on, there's someone at the door. BRB.
  23. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

    The real problem with Tom Cruise movies is that they all seem to have Tom Cruise in them.

  24. Re:Talk to dead space aliens by DrXym · · Score: 5, Funny
    To be precise, you'd spend about half a million to get to the point where they spring the space opera story on you. Once you've been suckered that far, there's a very strong psychological incentive to keep believing them, rather like the suckers who've fallen for the 419 scams.

    Blizzard, take heed and adjust your price plans accordingly.

  25. Re:This is on TV tonight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is very easy to hear about the Church of Scientology and write it off as a cult but I feel it's as valid a religion as any other, and it deserves as much protection (or as little protection) as any other. People who publicly write off Scientology as a "cult" are dangerously misleading the public and using Scientology as a scapegoat for problems that should be pinned on religion in general.

    Wrong. The difference between a cult and a religion is that you can leave a religion. The Church of Scientology disconnects its members from their families so they have nowhere to go when they leave, and brainwashes them under hypnosis to keep them from wanting to. The Church of Scientology is also the only "religion" to keep its core beliefs secret, to be run for profit, and to have its own paramilitary[1] and counter-intelligence[2] operations.

    There may be a Scientology religion, but that is NOT the same as the Church of Scientology. Separate the religion from the organization which practices it, and you will see that the organization is so thoroughly corrupt that it cannot be allowed to continue to exist in its present form.

    (Posted anonymously for my own protection, as everyone else who casually criticizes Scientology should.)

    [1] http://www.xenu.net/archive/so/
    [2] http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/index.htm
  26. Re:Should I be worried? by michaelnz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Similarly, when I was in college there was a Scientology office just down the road from the dorms. One day as I was walking by I saw a sign that said 'Free Personality Test' and I thought to myself, "That it is!" and stole the sign. Undoubtedly that says a lot about my personality.

    At the end of the semester I was approached by my RA who told me that the Church of Scientology had contacted him, they had seen the sign hanging up in my room through the window and they wanted it back. He seemed a little shaken and told me to get it back to them right away. When I took it back the office was empty so I left it on the desk with a note that said "Thetans made me do it."

  27. Re:This is on TV tonight by pkphilip · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks for dropping by. Your decision to post anonymously indicates that you are probably a scientologist sent here to astro turf.
    I guess this will post will give you a discount during your next dianetics session.

    First a few facts:

    1. No religion in existence goes after dissenters the way the church of scientology does; yes, it is true that in some third world countries and in the middle east, turning away from islam can get you killed. But in the west and in most westernized nations, there is the rule of law and the law protects people from being targetted by proponents of their religion. But CoS is able to pervert even this system of law in western nations to target even influential dissenters via harassment, and even death.

    2. Scientology is perhaps the only religion in the world where the only way to get to its "cures" is by paying a lot of money. Any other religion - Islam, Christianity etc - it is possible to become a muslim or a christian without paying any money.

    3. Scientology is also the newest religion on this planet created by Ron Hubbard - a known criminal. LRH's views on using harassment as a way of quelling dissent is well documented.

    4. Scientology also copyrights its "scriptures" - the only religion in the world to do that.

    In short - you guys are just scamsters trying to pass off what is really a scam as a religion; scientology was created by LRH with the explicit purpose of scamming people.

  28. Re:Why by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got caught some Dianetics people in the early 90s who were also offering a free personality test. Luckily I had read up on exactly what Dianetics was a few weeks beforehand and decided to go to see if it was really like I had read it was.

    First of all they showed me some video and then I filled in a questionaire or something and went for a private interview with one of their practioners. He was trying to insinuate that I had psychological problems by asking things like "So, what do you regret most in life then eh ?". "Actually, nothing. I am very happy with my life - how about you ?". He was getting more and more frustrated by me insisting that life and great and I was the worlds best example of a rounded, well adjusted human being and in the end explained his theory about how auditing can help erase bad influences in my psyche so I asked him to explain exactly, scientifically, how this process worked and disagreed with everything he said. This carried on for 10 minutes or so and then he lost his temper when I told him that from what I'd heard so far he was peddling a load of nonsense and would be well advised to get out while he could. Then he accused me of being a reporter and wouldn't say anything else. He just sat there and wouldn't talk at all. I sat there for another couple of minutes or so reading a book I had just bought in town until he got up and left the room without saying anything.

    All in all it was a very strange experience.